Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety.

The Tribunal found no evidence of an express promise in writing sufficient to support a legitimate expectation of renewal of appointment. The Tribunal also found that the reason given for the decision was sufficiently supported by the weight of the credible evidence. The Applicant did not meet the burden of proving that the decision was motivated by bias, prejudice or discrimination.

The Tribunal found that the belated filing and the accompanying legal advice and arguments advanced by OSLA Counsel on behalf of the Applicant in the context of the prior proceedings did not constitute an administrative decision subject to appeal before the Tribunal. The application was dismissed as not receivable.

The Tribunal held that the application was receivable since the Applicant was alleging non-compliance with the terms of his appointment¡ªnamely, the obligation to act reasonably and in good faith¡ªas a consequence of an alleged breach of an express promise creating a legitimate expectation. However, turning to the merits of the case, the Tribunal found that the Administration had not created a legitimate expectation when the Executive Office of the Department of Safety and Security informed him that ¡°barring unforeseen circumstances, it is the intention of the Department to extend [your] fixed...

The Tribunal found that there was no basis for finding that the OiC/MEU¡¯s writing in the MEU¡¯s letter to the Applicant amounted to a breach of either ST/SGB/2008/5 or ST/AI/371 and the USG/DM, therefore, did not infringe on the Applicant¡¯s rights when dismissing his complaints against the OiC/MEU. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion and found the application not receivable ratione temporis because (a) it was filed outside the applicable 90-day time limit as provided for by art. 8.1(d)(ii) of the Statute and (b) no extraordinary circumstances prevailed.

The rejection of creating a ¡°separate case¡± for the Applicant¡¯s motion for interim relief in Case No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/NY/2016/028 was done pursuant to the instructions of Judge Greceanu. The contested decision was therefore made by Judge Greceanu and not the Registrar, whose role was merely to communicate this decision to the Applicant. Since the facts were clear from the application, a summary judgment on receivability could be issued under art. 9 of the Rules of Procedure. The Tribunal rejected the application as not receivable ratione materiae.

The present current Dispute Tribunal not competent. The Tribunal rejected the application as not receivable ratione materiae.

The hiring manager for the contested position had determined that the Applicant did not fully meet the work experience requirements for the job opening. The Tribunal did not consider that the assessment of the hiring manager that the Applicant had not provided evidence of the relevant work experience was clearly erroneous or unreasonable so as to constitute an error of fact. In addition, after considering ST/AI/2010/3 (Staff selection system) and the Manual for the Hiring Manager on the Staff Selection System, the Tribunal found that there was no error of law when the hiring manager conducted...

The Applicant submitted three sets of education grant claims, on 19 November 2012, 12 July 2013, and 8 September 2014 in respect to the relevant school years. The Tribunal found that on 14 February 2013, 11 September 2013, and 2 October 2014, respectively, OHRM made decisions not to process the three claims, pending settlement of the Applicant¡¯s claim in respect to the 2011¨C2012 school year. It was alleged that the Applicant had submitted misleading or false documents in respect to this claim. The Applicant submitted a request for management evaluation in respect of all three of his education...